When the Treasury Is Full but Token Holders Are Bleeding: A Proposal to Return the 3% Fee

1

In GMX V2, the share of fees allocated to GMX token holders was reduced from 30% to 27%, with the remaining 3% redirected to the DAO.

After more than two years of operation, the DAO-controlled treasury has accumulated approximately 35 million USD. Meanwhile, GMX’s market capitalization is currently only around 70 to 80 million USD and continues to decline.

Sustaining GMX’s long-term value requires that fee distribution remains aligned with those who bear the primary economic risk of the protocol. At present, the treasury is already sufficiently funded, while GMX token holders have absorbed prolonged downside with diminishing participation in protocol revenues.

Under these conditions, the current fee allocation structure no longer appears optimal for long-term value alignment. Therefore, I propose that starting in 2026, this 3% fee allocation be reassigned back to GMX token holders.

Thank you.

2

I am not sure what 3% is going to solve, it’s even higher on MegaETH as well, as it’s 5% there.

I don’t think it makes sense to do this, sorry.

In the future after JIT is live, we can hopefully move some of the % fee structure from LPs to GMX.

3

MegaETH doesn’t matter because it has a very small chance to succeed.

I think we shouldn’t move the % fee from LPs, we need them absolutely right now.

But our treasury is quite large now.

4

Isn’t the DAO, in the end of the day, also owned by the GMX stakers?

7

No, it’s not directly controlled by the GMX stakers.

8

It seems nobody care about this, could anyone who is holding 10,000 GMX tokens starts a snapshot vote please?

9

This not solve anything . I am holder, and this proposal lead to my weekly income increase from 100$ to 110$.

Does it make really big deal for me ? No at all.

So, i am not a big fan of this proposal. sorry.

There needed more dramatic changes to market conditions at first place imho.. and GMX platform ongoing progress ofc.. especially marketing side of it, which was always our weak side.

Maybe we need to run ai-race benchmark ontop of GMX where different ai models gonna to compete eachother in terms of ability to earn money via trading. People love that stuff on twitter as far as I can see.

So i would prefer to forward these 3% to powerup the marketing incentives for usecases like I described.

10

I think whether a 10% yield increase matters really depends on the holder. For long-term holders, small improvements add up over time, and the impact is much bigger than it looks on a week-to-week basis.

Also, let’s not forget why we moved from 30% to 27% in the first place. The main reason was to build up the treasury. If the treasury is now in a strong position, then it makes sense to revisit that decision and consider going back to 30%. That feels consistent with the original logic.

I agree that marketing and growth need more attention. But I don’t see this as a choice between rewarding holders and funding marketing. We should be able to work on both at the same time.

1 Like